Hughes on First?
Sandwichman cross post taken from Econospeak Have to admit, the spectre of mailman flying a gyrocopter onto the lawn of the Capitol building appeals to the Sandwichman’s weakness for eccentric idealists.
From the Tampa Bay Times, here is the letter that Doug Hughes was delivering to 535 members of both houses of Congress.
Dear ___________,
Consider the following statement by John Kerry in his farewell speech to the Senate —“The unending chase for money I believe threatens to steal our democracy itself. They know it. They know we know it. And yet, Nothing Happens!” — John Kerry, 2-13
In a July 2012 Gallup poll, 87% tagged corruption in the federal government as extremely important or very important, placing this issue just barely behind job creation. According to Gallup, public faith in Congress is at a 41-year record low, 7%. (June 2014) Kerry is correct. The popular perception outside the DC beltway is that the federal government is corrupt and the US Congress is the major problem. As a voter, I’m a member of the only political body with authority over Congress. I’m demanding reform and declaring a voter’s rebellion in a manner consistent with Jefferson’s description of rights in the Declaration of Independence. As a member of Congress, you have three options.
1. You may pretend corruption does not exist.
2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform.
3. You may actively participate in real reform.If you’re considering option 1, you may wonder if voters really know what the ‘chase for money’ is. Your dismal and declining popularity documented by Gallup suggests we know, but allow a few examples, by no means a complete list. That these practices are legal does not make them right! Obviously, it is Congress who writes the laws that make corruption legal.
1. Dozens of major and very profitable corporations pay nothing in taxes. Voters know how this is done. Corporations pay millions to lobbyists for special legislation. Many companies on the list of freeloaders are household names — GE, Boeing, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, Citigroup, Dow …
2. Almost half of the retiring members of Congress from 1998 to 2004 got jobs as lobbyists earning on average fourteen times their Congressional salary. (50% of the Senate, 42% of the House)
3. The new democratic freshmen to the US House in 2012 were ‘advised’ by the party to schedule 4 hours per day on the phones fund raising at party headquarters (because fund raising is illegal from gov’t offices.) It is the donors with deep pockets who get the calls, but seldom do the priorities of the rich donor help the average citizen.
4. The relevant (rich) donors who command the attention of Congress are only .05% of the public (5 people in a thousand) but these aristocrats of both parties are who Congress really works for. As a member of the US Congress, you should work only for The People.1. Not yourself.
2. Not your political party.
3. Not the richest donors to your campaign.
4. Not the lobbyist company who will hire you after your leave Congress.There are several credible groups working to reform Congress. Their evaluations of the problem are remarkably in agreement though the leadership (and membership) may lean conservative or liberal. They see the corrupting effect of money — how the current rules empower special interests through lobbyists and PACs — robbing the average American of any representation on any issue where the connected have a stake. This is not democracy even if the ritual of elections is maintained.
The various mechanisms which funnel money to candidates and congress-persons are complex. It happens before they are elected, while they are in office and after they leave Congress. Fortunately, a solution to corruption is not complicated. All the proposals are built around either reform legislation or a Constitutional Amendment. Actually, we need both — a constitutional amendment and legislation.
There will be discussion about the structure and details of reform. As I see it, campaign finance reform is the cornerstone of building an honest Congress. Erect a wall of separation between our elected officials and big money. This you must do — or your replacement will do. A corporation is not ‘people’ and no individual should be allowed to spend hundreds of millions to ‘influence’ an election. That much money is a megaphone which drowns out the voices of ‘We the People.’ Next, a retired member of Congress has a lifelong obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That almost half the retired members of Congress work as lobbyists and make millions of dollars per year smells like bribery, however legal. It must end. Pass real campaign finance reform and prohibit even the appearance of payola after retirement and you will be part of a Congress I can respect.
The states have the power to pass a Constitutional Amendment without Congress — and we will. You in Congress will likely embrace the change just to survive, because liberals and conservatives won’t settle for less than democracy. The leadership and organization to coordinate a voters revolution exist now! New groups will add their voices because the vast majority of Americans believe in the real democracy we once had, which Congress over time has eroded to the corrupt, dysfunctional plutocracy we have.
The question is where YOU individually stand. You have three options and you must choose.
Sincerely,
Douglas M. Hughes
See also: WHAT IS OUR ONE DEMAND?
See also: Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens”
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Run – A question – Do you support this guy and what he did?
Mr. Krasting:
As an X-Marine Sergeant, I think it is funnier than anything that something as low tech as a homemade-flying-bicycle can achieve access to a supposed highly secure area with little interference or awareness of person. Since Dien Bein Phu (and probably earlier); all the technology, personnel on the ground, and money in the world has not been capable of defeating the simplest of approaches. That ideology plus non-confrontational mass tactics and the sacrifice of a Bn here and a Bn there so the main force can live to fight again has defeated any intent of ours and other nations to control the outcome. In the end, we lose.
Your question is really secondary and a distraction to the issue he is supporting, now isn’t it? We have a corrupt Congress which advocates for big money and a select few who will have far greater influence over the selection of the next President and Congress. Dare I say with your pronounced views on AB, you indeed support this approach of a select few and big money selection? We have a society, a nation in which corporations have much more economic and political power then the constituents, a Corpocracy. Something has to change, the same as in the sixties when people went to register to vote. He could have been shot out of the air and died the same as others who challenged the system. I expect there will be more of the constituency challenging the way Congress sits today and decides.
Okay Run, was just checking where you sit on this one. You’re entitled to your opinion.
Me? I think this just another postal worker who has gone “Postal”. He broke the law, he endangered others with his stunt. His action cause a very big mess in DC that will have a significant direct cost.
This fellow may have been delivering a message that you share. But in the end he did himself (and you) a big disservice. I think he should spend some time in the clink. I also think he should pay a fine that is equal to the costs he caused. I also hope that the next guy who tries a stunt like this does get shot down.
There is a big difference between a protest and reckless endangerment.
BK:
He endangered himself alone. His minority right to protest have been philosophized and supported over the years by others who took the extreme. Where would we be today if the few who wished to break away from England were suppressed by those around them. Nowhere did Hughes endanger the physical being of the majority. In turn you wish to suppress the protest and actions of a minority in favor of majority beliefs.
Indeed, he should pay for his actions? How about Wall Street ponying up for the cost of 2008/2009 to Main Street. We can start with investment firms giving up their status as banks and borrowing at lower rates. We could start with taxing derivative transactions. There is a plethora of areas to be attached and recoup what was lost to Main Street. As far as the clink, still waiting for Wall Street execs to go to jail for a bit and be banned from Wall Street. Think it will ever happen? Not likely. Thank you for your opinion BK.
Mr. Krasting, If it’s obedient protest you are looking for you might consider emigrating to China. In a free and democratic nation the right to protest is de jure and the intent to protest in a disobedient way is de facto. That’s been demonstrated throughout the history of the USofA. It may not suit you that someone would demonstrate in such a flagrant manner, but Mr. Hughes certainly got the media’s attention to his specific grievance. Unfortunately the media is also one of those corporate entities that seek to influence our selection of government representatives to their own benefit.
BKrasting, Don’t you see that you are part of the problem if you support lemming behavior that preserves government by the money and for the money? No matter how much money you leave your offspring, it won’t last through many generations of your descendants but government by the people and for the people just might if we quit destroying the fabric before such descendants are born. I agree with the statement made by Mr. Hughes in the video and would also rather die than live to see the end of this great experiment.
Hmmm. Hughes’ own words:
“No sane person,” he said, “would do what I’m doing.”
“I have thought about walking away from this whole thing because it’s crazy,”
Anna, you prefer dying? Really? Write 500 letters and step in front of a bus? Crazy, insane…….
“Hughes’ own words:”
Yes, a bit of hyperbole to try to emphasize the rigid wall of inaction regarding one of the most difficult political issues of the day. Mr. K, can you be more substantive regarding your criticisms of Mr. Hughes’ in your face method of delivering his mail to his Congressional representatives and their cohorts. Quoting two sentences out of the whole is a bit meaningless.
BKrastings, I worry about your understanding of anything. The answer to your question, though, is YES. I am crazy, insane about my country and it’s future. YES, YES, and YES!
Ok Anna – I believe you – you’re crazy and insane. But over what?
Hughes was upset about campaign finance laws. In particular he was ticked off by a SCOTUS ruling from five years ago.
Campaign Finance is a cause worth dying for? We’re not talking about illegal wars, or cop killings, cop killers, or social inequality. This is about how elections are financed. You really prepared to die for that?
Before pulling the cord I suggest you take a look at the largest donors for Hillary Clinton:
Citigroup
Goldman Sachs
DA Piper
JP Morgan Chase
Morgan Stanley
Merrill Lynch
Credit Suisse
And (my favorite) Skadden Arps
Hillary is your champion, Yes? And your ok with her taking money from those guys? Maybe you should fly a chopper to her front door and see what it gets you. Same as Hughes – nothing but a felony rap.
It was never ok to change campaign laws. It is not ok for candidates to accept funding from a select few in unlimited amounts resulting in unlimited influence. Hughes complaint is precisely such and he rejects it all. Read it and learn:
I was at “Showdown in Chicago,” where were you Bruce? I know what I stand for and it surely is not the system of government foisted upon by a few for the benefit of a few.
“The question is where YOU individually stand. You have three options and you must choose.”
1. You may pretend corruption does not exist.
2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform.
3. You may actively participate in real reform.
Sincerely,
Douglas M. Hughes
Huh? BKrasting – That is precisely why I questioned your understanding of anything.
Bkrasting,
You are right — campaign financing is not worth dying for. Nor are illegal wars, cop killing/killers or social inequality. None of it is worth dying for.
The only thing “worth dying for” is to live.
That’s what Doug Hughes was doing. That is what he said he was doing. Perhaps you don’t recognize it because you’re too deeply invested in the “frame” that has been cast for you to conform to.
You want to protest? The line forms on the right. Follow instructions and wait your turn. Don’t step out of line or you’ll lose your turn. Contribute your three dollar bills to the campaign to end campaign contributions.
In an oligarchy all dissent is either trivial or it is terrorism.
Hughes evaded triviality by mocking the oligarchy’s obsession with terrorism. How much of that performance was sheer genius and how much was pure accident, we probably will never know. It doesn’t matter. The living felt something stir inside. The already dead felt only resentment.
Krasting
in fact I don’t like you. and have been called “rude” for expressing my disagreements with you in strong images.
but “I hope….he gets shot down.” tells me that I was always right in thinking the worst of you.
Me, I’d like to borrow his bicycle. I already know the futility of delivering letters to my Senators.
We’re not talking about illegal wars, or cop killings, cop killers, or social inequality, BKrasting?
Oh, but we are.